Norwich Police - Telling cyclists off...for being on a cycle path!

[Crankarm]

Possibly but the police just stopping cyclists who are using the shared pathway was what was described by OP. That in itself is a pointless activity especially if the council have recently spent money converting it into a shared path with a toucan light. Antisocial cycling may not be limited to those studying.

There is probably more to this than meets the eye and that we currently know. I'm sure Thomas will keep us posted. However I wouldn't be surprised if I'm fairly close to what has brought about the police's interest.

 

[ttcycle]

I'm sure there is more to the story but actually I disagree with the prohibitive and authoritarian approach full stop as it doesn't lead to that positive change in attitudes.

 

[thomas]

Okay, update...and I will try to answer all questions and points....ask again if I've missed something B)

Over 40 cyclists have been warned about cycling without lights and on the footpath

I have no problem with people being stopped, fined, etc, for cycling on the pavement. It does get annoying as I walk along the road a few times a week. The Avenues road aren't scary and one side has a decent cycle path. My complaint was only about the Police stopping people from cycling on the cycle path section.

Students ............. not the most considerate or responsible group of people to ever take to two wheels. If they are anything like their bretheren in Cambridge I would back the police. Most students are so clever they can't even get their shoes on the correct foot.

It isn't just students who would cycle this section, the University hires many people, and many of them cycle. In the group, the person I spoke to was the eldest and could quite likely have been a lecturer, admin assistant...etc.

And yes, some students seem to cycle badly...but I've seen plenty of bad cycling by people who obviously weren't students in Norwich too.

Had this facility that Thomas writes about been used by a few local cyclists, not students, then I doubt very much the police would have even been there. I suspect a member of the public or two, pedestrian or cyclist, have complained to the police or LA which has resulted in the police taking action. IME police are just not bothered with this type of thing. That's my 2ps worth.

Local resident had complained in a local meeting. Without the students the facility would not be as popular so less people not using the facilities. I don't mind those not using the facilities, or road, being stopped.

Crankarm, my complaint and issue is only with the Police stopping and telling people off for using a cycle path. I have no other objection. I couldn't care if the people who were stopped were students or not, it doesn't matter if they were the most experienced or most inexperienced cyclist in the world. They were stopped from doing something they had every right to do...and the ones I saw were all being sensible. No one goes that fast at this section as first thing in the morning it's always very busy and the traffic lights slow people down anyway.


Update

I received this email from an officer who was there.

I am one of those officers who have been standing on the Avenues, junction with Bluebell road. I must inform you that the issue of cyclists, cycling on the footpath was raised by community members at the last Safer Neighbourhood Action Panel (SNAP) meeting on 21/1/2010. As a result of this, and concerns from local neighbours it is my job to ensure that cyclists are not cycling on the footpath and that they use the cycle paths provided or the road.

With regards to the work that the council has been doing in the area, I am aware that where the cycle paths are, has become somewhat ambiguous. However, I spoke to one of the council employees who informed me that the cycle paths remain as they were, and that they have been made wider. Both the cycle paths on Bluebell Road and the one leading from the avenues onto Bluebell Road are still operational. I agree that the cycle paths are yet to be painted, onto the ground however, this is an issue for the council.

Further to this, without police involvement this issue has arisen, (cyclists cycling on the footpath). As a Safer Neighbourhood team Police Constable it is my role to help resolve issues that are raised by the community I police. This is one such issue, and requires police attendance. Cyclists have been given both words of advice and have been given fixed penalty notices to the amount of £30, as it is an offence to cycle on the footpath. It has become clear that without police involvement in this issue that the problem would persist and potentially increase. My aim and the team’s aim are to make our area safer and at the same time build confidence from our residents. This is why we hold the SNAP meetings.

With regards to the addition of the toucan lights, yes indeed the cyclists can now cycle across the crossing. The cycle path is split on that side of Bluebell Road, half pedestrian, half cyclist, so the introduction of the toucan lights must be a positive one. As mentioned earlier the council have said that the cycle paths remain the same, so I await them painting the lines onto the ground.

It is people like yourself who we are attempting to help and I see that you would like a response to this issue; I hope you find this reply satisfactory. Please if you need to ask any questions then I would be more than happy to help.

For your information the next SNAP meeting is on the 13/5/2010, a venue is yet to be decided.

I've replied just to clarify a few details...

s I mentioned in the email I don't have a problem with cyclists being stopped, warned or fined for cycling on the footpath. My only objection was on the Friday seeing a group of cyclists being told to walk along the cycle path, which you mentioned is now ambiguious. Though the paint on the ground might be removed, there is still a shared use sign up and a reasonable assumption made by local cyclists that it is still operational.

You said "As mentioned earlier the council have said that the cycle paths remain the same, so I await them painting the lines onto the ground.". By this do you mean that cyclists will continue to be asked to walk this section until the lines have been painted onto the ground? This obviously doesn't sound like a very sensile intervention, but I am not sure if that is what you meant? My main worry would be if cyclists are told not use use it until there is paint on the ground, when there is people will not have the confidence to use it when completed.

I am all for trying to improve the behaviours of all road users around Norwich, and my only objection was for the cyclists who were incorrectly stopped and asked to walk. Can I confirm that cyclists who are using the ambiguious section will not be stopped in the future?

I have copied Tom Sutton in, who is the Universities' Welfare Officer as I believe he has contacted or is going to try to contact you about similar complaints made by other students.

 

[StuartG]

You seem a very reasonable and persistent person. I do hope you do go along to the SNAP meeting.

One thing I did pick up from the PC's reply was the assumption that illegal footpath riding is a safety issue in that neighbourhood. I doubt this (except at the most marginal). It is more probably being really raised as a public nuisance issue. It would be helpful if people did not conflate the two as this does not help in prioritisation.

And SNAPs are all about prioritisation.

 

[snorri]

I have to say, from what I understand in this thread, the action of the police seems quite reasonable.
The area is in a state of flux due to road works and road markings being incomplete. Members of the public have felt threatened by cyclists and complained to the police, the police have acted by asking cyclists not to cycle at present.
The police have not fined anyone or arrested anyone, they have merely given advice in an effort to prevent accidents until such time as works are completed and both pedestrian and cycle routes are clearly defined.

 

[thomas]

You seem a very reasonable and persistent person. I do hope you do go along to the SNAP meeting.

One thing I did pick up from the PC's reply was the assumption that illegal footpath riding is a safety issue in that neighbourhood. I doubt this (except at the most marginal). It is more probably being really raised as a public nuisance issue. It would be helpful if people did not conflate the two as this does not help in prioritisation.

And SNAPs are all about prioritisation.

When I spoke to one of the Officers a few weeks ago it seemed a couple people may have been hit (I think it was probably a near miss and people exaggerating).

Not sure about going to the meeting. Guess I don't really know what to expect or how I could bring around my complaint now in it.

I have to say, from what I understand in this thread, the action of the police seems quite reasonable.
The area is in a state of flux due to road works and road markings being incomplete. Members of the public have felt threatened by cyclists and complained to the police, the police have acted by asking cyclists not to cycle at present.
The police have not fined anyone or arrested anyone, they have merely given advice in an effort to prevent accidents until such time as works are completed and both pedestrian and cycle routes are clearly defined.

They started before that road works did. They definitely did fine people as I saw them and I spoke to one of the Officers about if they were stopping pavement cyclists and he said they were and "being tough this time".

It did not seem that cyclists were being asked to not cycle until the works had been finished, on the facilities. They were just being told not to cycle. This was the impression I got from the person I asked (who had just been stopped). If the facilities were not in use then this should have been signed by the council to save any confusion about future use.

When I saw them being stopped the main road works were done. During the works the cycle lane did have "cycle lane closed" type signs and the odd cyclist dismount sign. Everything has been cleared away now...just the line painting team need to come. That could be ages though. I'm sure the lights cost £100,000+ from some of the estimates I've seen on here, so silly not to have it operational just because Mr Plod doesn't see any paint on the floor but is aware that it is a designated cycle lane (there are still signs up and the remains of paint still show). If that was the case it would also be against home office recommendations on stopping pavement cyclists IMO.

My complaint isn't unreasonable. More than happy for Plod to be there and stop appropriate people...just leave the ones using the facilities alone.

 

[downfader]

I have to say, from what I understand in this thread, the action of the police seems quite reasonable.
The area is in a state of flux due to road works and road markings being incomplete. Members of the public have felt threatened by cyclists and complained to the police, the police have acted by asking cyclists not to cycle at present.
The police have not fined anyone or arrested anyone, they have merely given advice in an effort to prevent accidents until such time as works are completed and both pedestrian and cycle routes are clearly defined.

If there really is/was an issue they should have worked with the council and put up the appropriate signage on and around the cyclepath denoting that it be closed.

It is not appropriate for a Police officer to advice, or by the sounds of it here lecture, a law abiding member of the public. I'll use the women and short skirts analogy again... if they went up to young women and "suggested" that they cover up for fear or rape or sexual abuse would that be appropriate? There has to be a line drawn and they should have told the SNAP meeting "we have no jurisdiction over this, its within the law"

I hope Thomas is right that many others who were being legal did get in touch and make a complaint. It would certainly set the issue straight, as people need to know where they stand, and it does seem like things were confused.

 

[StuartG]

The point here is if safety is the issue - that is different from nuisance and even legality. For instance if it is a very brightly lit area - riding without lights may be less dangerous than riding badly. The problem is the former is an easy offence to ticket, the other is not.

A reasonable PC (there are still some!) will rely on the fact that a dangerous rider will probably also be committing several other technical offences and ticket them on these - while just "having words" with those may be breaking the law but unlikely to endanger the public.

Its all about discretion - with the police, and more importantly the panel members, not seeing cyclists as one amorphous anti-social mass. Indeed we should be partners too in sorting out two wheeled misbehaviour.

 

[thomas]

I hope Thomas is right that many others who were being legal did get in touch and make a complaint. It would certainly set the issue straight, as people need to know where they stand, and it does seem like things were confused.

Yeah, it sounds like some people who were stopped (Possibly, legally and illegally) wrote to the Union for advice on the issue.

The point here is if safety is the issue - that is different from nuisance and even legality. For instance if it is a very brightly lit area - riding without lights may be less dangerous than riding badly. The problem is the former is an easy offence to ticket, the other is not.

A reasonable PC (there are still some!) will rely on the fact that a dangerous rider will probably also be committing several other technical offences and ticket them on these - while just "having words" with those may be breaking the law but unlikely to endanger the public.

Its all about discretion - with the police, and more importantly the panel members, not seeing cyclists as one amorphous anti-social mass. Indeed we should be partners too in sorting out two wheeled misbehaviour.

None of the people stopped were being dangerous. I've not really ever seen anyone on the pavement or cycle facilities/road do anything that dangerous.

The worst I saw was someone undertaking a van at speed. The odd RLJer, but (though I don't condone it really) none at times that would make me bat an eye lid. This is slightly off the point though.

There wasn't any need from a safety ground to get these cyclists to stop and push, and if there was none of them seemed to have been made aware of what it was.

 

[downfader]

The point here is if safety is the issue - that is different from nuisance and even legality. For instance if it is a very brightly lit area - riding without lights may be less dangerous than riding badly. The problem is the former is an easy offence to ticket, the other is not.

A reasonable PC (there are still some!) will rely on the fact that a dangerous rider will probably also be committing several other technical offences and ticket them on these - while just "having words" with those may be breaking the law but unlikely to endanger the public.

Its all about discretion - with the police, and more importantly the panel members, not seeing cyclists as one amorphous anti-social mass. Indeed we should be partners too in sorting out two wheeled misbehaviour.

I dont remember Thomas mentioning it being dark or cyclists being stopped for being unlit?

The trouble is some people assume cycling is dangerous full stop. This carries over to the shared paths where you sometimes get a little conflict (I have had things said to me on them by pedestrians who dont understand or frankly dont want you there). They see a cyclist and think "danger!" Doesnt matter if they're only doing 5mph.

 

[StuartG]

I dont remember Thomas mentioning it being dark or cyclists being stopped for being unlit?

The quoted Panel Report referred to 40 cyclists being stopped for riding on pavement or having no lights along The Avenue. The connection with safety is what I was querying.

If pedestrians are endangered or feel they are being endangered then the police can be prioritised to take action. That is what they are supposed to do. The problem is to separate a real problem from an imagined one. That requires one to dig deeper and go to the SNAP and see whether they are reasonable people or not.

 

[thomas]

The quoted policemen referred to 40 cyclists being stopped for riding on pavement or having no lights. The connection with safety is what I was querying.

If pedestrians are endangered or feel they are being endangered then the police can be prioritised to take action. That is what they are supposed to do. The problem is separate a real problem from an imagined one. That requires one to dig deeper and go to the SNAP and see whether they are reasonable people or not.

I quoted VikeonaBike from earlier in the thread. I think they are separate issues tbh.

This thread is about my complaint of the Police stopping people from riding legally when there was no need to.

People without lights, riding on pavements, etc, is a completely different issue. If the Police want to do something about it then that's fine. It's different to telling people of when they're not doing anything wrong.

 

[Crankarm]

It sounds as if any FPN notices issued would be unenforcible if disputed owing to the signage issues still indicating that cycling was permitted. I would scoot down there and take some pics.

 

[snorri]

My complaint isn't unreasonable. More than happy for Plod to be there and stop appropriate people...just leave the ones using the facilities alone.

OK
I will retire confused.

 

[thomas]

It sounds as if any FPN notices issued would be unenforcible if disputed owing to the signage issues still indicating that cycling was permitted. I would scoot down there and take some pics.

Nah, I think the FPN were given to people on the foot path....I only saw the cyclists being warned for using the cycle path . Possibly just because there was like 6 of them at the time, rather than the odd one who would be on the footpath.

OK
I will retire confused.

haha...